Here is an interesting excerpt from Lyne's book which, although not from a standard
scientific journal, appears to have some vital information in it,
particularly with regard to early hydrogen welding processes and other
processes such as the Papp engine. We stress that statements in the article
where Lyne simply rejects general relativity etc., and using his own
terminology, should not be taken too literally since it is his opinion.
Further, that is not the important part of his information advanced.

In modern quantum field theory, the charge (such as a proton which is
atomic hydrogen without its electron) is considered an infinite bare charged
mass in the middle surrounded by infinite virtual charged masses of opposite
sign. The difference between the two infinities is finite, so the external
observer looking through the "shielding screen" of the outer charge sees its
difference with the sign of the inner charge, and thus sees a finite value
for the inner charged mass, even though infinite charges are involved. In
short, he "sees" or observes the standard textbook value for the charge and
its mass. But by the asymmetry of opposite charges, two infinite charges of
opposite sign can in fact pour out EM energy indefinitely (unceasingly).
The original charges of the early universe have been doing so for some 14.7
billion years, assuming the best observational determinations of the age of
the universe.

With the discovery of broken symmetry in 1957, one of the proven broken
symmetries is that of opposite charges. The classical "isolated charge"
(such as the proton/atomic hydrogen), is actually a charge ensemble of
opposite charges. Hence a priori the "isolated charge" (classical view)
must demonstrate the asymmetry of opposite charges in the quantum field
theoretic view. This means that the charge really does continuously absorb
virtual photon energy from the vacuum, coherently integrate it into
observable photons, and re-emit that EM energy as real, observable photons
radiating in all directions at light speed. This radiated real EM energy
establishes and continuously replenishes the associated fields and
potentials of the source charge, radially outward at light speed. So atomic
hydrogen (the proton) does indeed continuously extract virtual energy from
the active vacuum, integrate it into real observable energy, and radiate
that real EM energy outward.

This focuses strong attention on the gross inaccuracy of the present
view of the "static EM field" (as from a charge or a dipole such as a
permanent magnet) in both physics and electrical engineering. The EM field in
space is comprised of real observable photons, else we must discard quantum
mechanics, quantum field theory, quantum electrodynamics, and much of
physics. Further, a photon in space is moving at light speed a priori. So
(in spite of the odd view of some physicists and most engineers), the
"static" EM field must be more correctly regarded as in Van Flandern's
analogy of a sort of "perfect waterfall", whose total form appears static,
but with that "static envelope" made of internal parts in continuous motion,
with each part moving out of any position noted and being replaced by the
part behind it. The EM field in space is that sort of structure, where its
"internal parts" are photons and the photons are moving at light speed.

The point is that any charge produces a
continuous flow of real, usable EM energy from the vacuum.
Thermodynamically we are describing a nonequilibrium steady-state (NESS) system,
and such a system is permitted to continuously emit energy (received from its
environment). The charge also falsifies the present second law of thermodynamics
to any size level and time duration desired, because the emitted photons do form
deterministic EM fields and potentials as a function of radial distance.
One calculates the field intensity and potential intensity at any radial point,
by a deterministic formula -- not by the use of statistics.

Stated in the language of thermodynamics, the charge
consumes positive entropy (disordered and uncontrolled energy) in the virtual
state, and coherently integrates it to ordered and controlled energy in the
observable state, which is a negative entropy operation producing useful EM
energy in the observable state.

Here is the secret of the "coherent integration" process of the source
charge. By absorbing a virtual photon, the energy of that virtual photon
(divided by c-squared) provides a virtual change to the mass m of the
charge. But that mass is integral and unitary! The entire mass is what is
changed, not just some part of it. Then another virtual photon is absorbed,
with a second virtual change of the mass, COHERENTLY added to that first
virtual change because the mass change is unitary. Hence the iterative
virtual changes of the mass of the charge add coherently until sufficient mass
accumulates (when multiplied by c-squared) to constitute the energy of an
observable photon. At that point the virtual excitation of the mass decays
by emitting a real, observable photon. The process iteratively proceeds with
a rapidity that is mindboggling.

The end result is to put some real substance into Lyne's observations
on the excess energy from atomic hydrogen, which is equivalent to the excess
energy from the proton. The proton (and any other charge, viewed in the
quantum field theory manner) is continuously and ceaselessly pouring out
real EM energy extracted and coherently integrated (RE-ORDERED and
RECOVERED) from the disordered virtual energy of the seething vacuum. So
the only barrier to COP>1.0 EM performance with atomic hydrogen is in the
process or method used to diverge and collect sufficient of the continuously
flowing "gusher" of real EM energy from each atom (each proton). Or, viewed
thermodynamically, COP>1.0 performance is permitted by the NESS process, as
is already well known in the thermodynamics of nonequilibrium steady state
systems. It's rather like a windmill in a steady wind. It can permissibly
change the form of its input energy to a different form of output energy,
and part of that output energy can be intercepted, collected, and dissipated
to power external loads. The common solar cell does the same thing,
receiving observable photons from its environment and outputting electrical
energy.

So the reader is urged to simply consider the fundamental information
in Lyne's cogent writing, in light of the foregoing discussion, and sort out
the science as he sees fit. The real point of the article is the excess energy
output, and its availability for use to perform real work.

Tom Bearden

7/6/03.

Quote from William Lyne's book “Occult Ether Physics”
Page 84:

The atomic hydrogen reaction first came to my attention in 1964,
when I was studying industrial processes at Sam Houston State University, in
Huntsville, Texas, the year after taking an introductory course in college
physics. While reviewing various welding processes in a textbook, my eyes fixed
on an older process called "atomic hydrogen welding". By that time, the process
was already considered "obsolete". Tome, the process seemed valuable,
not only because it produces such high temperatures—above 3400° F.—enough to
melt tungsten—the highest temperatures producible by man—but is also
"self-shielding", and can be used to weld diverse metals, often without flux,
with a concentrated flame producing little heat distortion, when welding thin
metal. In the process, 'normal' diatomic H2 is shot through an
electric arc which dissociates it into "atomic" hydrogen, H1. This
atomic hydrogen recombines at the (welded) metal surface, producing the very
high heat. Though the process interested me then, and always has, I have never
seen an atomic hydrogen welding unit for sale, for the 31 years hence.
Industry's obvious excuse for laying the valuable process aside was that it had
been 'replaced' by 'better' processes, such as Heliarc, TIG, and MIG
welding, though they rarely mention "plasma arc welding", which has also almost
disappeared from the market. Since plasma arc welding is merely an extension of
the atomic hydrogen process, using a specially redesigned torch, the
'mysterious' reasons are undoubtedly the same.

The process simmered in the inner recesses of my mind for a few
years until 1976, when I rekindled my interest in the process for possible use
in welding stainless steel and reducing and fusing platinum metal compounds,
because hydrogen reduces such compounds (which must also be shielded from
oxygen) to metals. The atomic hydrogen process does not rely upon the combustion
of hydrogen with oxygen in the air, but upon the "atomic" energy released when
atomic hydrogen recombines to form the 'normal', diatomic hydrogen. I still had
some unanswered questions, since the various welding data at my disposal failed
to mention sufficient specific details. If Nikola Tesla was right, then I am
right, that the energy comes from the ether .

Because I knew of no source from which to purchase an atomic
hydrogen torch, I decided to build one, but my information was inadequate for
proper construction. In the torch I made, the hydrogen gas entered the arc
concentrically, around both electrodes, instead of passing through the arc at a
right angle. I also used the wrong kind of arc transformer, so it didn't work as
well as it should have.

Despite the disappointment, I knew the torch would work better
if I corrected the problems, so I kept the torch in my barn until better
information and sufficient time was available. I excited the curiosity of the
industrial spooks, when I rented a large tank of hydrogen at a local welder's
supply, and this probably contributed to the sudden acceleration of the
CIA-maintained judicial harassment I endured between 1974 and 1992 (18 years).
They apparently assumed I was exploring the process for its energy potential,
rather than for just welding, and they were correct. My torch is shown below:

In the '70s, I had acquired an old English inorganic chemistry
textbook l, purchased from Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory salvage
for $.25, which contained a halftone photo of a '30s-vintage atomic hydrogen
welding torch, along with some basic data. The torch shown was different from
the one I constructed, in that it used a high voltage arc transformer, and had
no mechanism to strike the arc electrodes together to start the arc, because the
high voltage made it unnecessary. It also showed the gas passing at right angle
through the arc. In this old textbook, it was stated at page 170 (emphasis
mine), as follows: "Langmuir (1912)discovered that hydrogen at low
pressure in contact with a tungsten wire heated by an electric current is
dissociated to some extent into atoms:"...."This absorbs a large amount
of energy, about 100kcal. Per gram-molecule. " "... The atomic
hydrogen formed is chemically very active. Atomic hydorgen is formed when an
electric arc between tungsten electrodes is allowed to burn in hydrogen at
atmospheric pressures (Fig. 106) ".

The text continued:

"Atomic-hydrogen blown out of the arc by a jet of molecular
hydrogen across the arc, forms an intensely hot flame, capable of melting
tungsten (m. Pt. 3400 o). This flame obtains its heat from
recombination of hydrogen atoms to H2."

"Hydrogen being set free in a chemical reaction is often more
reactive than hydrogen gas."

"...the activity of such nascent (newborn) hydrogen, in
the act of liberation from its compounds, is due to the hydrogen being in the
atomic state."

The following is a copy of "fig.106" :

In checking this data in a more recent Van Nostrand's
Encyclopedia of Science z., at page 1311 it was stated in pertinent part:

"Hydrogen molecule dissociate to atoms endothermically at high
temperatures (heat of dissociation about 103 cal/gram mole) in an electric arc,
or by irradiation." "...the hydrogen atoms recombine at the metal surface to
provide heat required for welding."

I was surprised to find this in the Van Nostrand encyclopedia,
but I also found that in 1910, the D. Van Nostrand Company published a book by
HaIler and Cunningham, entitled The High Frequency Coil, (The
construction of a Tesla Coil for the advanced amateur. 119 pages), so there is a
record of sorts, of Van Nostrand's association with Tesla.

SMOKESCREENS FROM ACADEMIA

It seemed odd to me that it was later suggested that the 103
calories of dissociation energy absorbed from a very brief exposure to the arc
is the same heat as that "...required for welding" as described, and I believed
it to be more reasonable that the excess heat had to come from "elsewhere". The
dissociation energy would be analogical to a slice of bread (@4 cal.
gram), and the gross output would be equivalent to 60 loaves of bread
(@1814 cal. lb.), calorie-wise. There was too much disparity between the two,
with plenty of suspicious omissions and confusions, in an obvious attempt to
cover up the truth in between.

The older text showed the clearer construction of a device, and
the newer text showed that only 103 cal./gram mole were required for
dissociation, while the older text showed that 100,000 cal./gram mole were
liberated on recombination. Only by jumping back and forth between the two
sources was I able to put a complete documentation together, and discover the
conflicts.

It was apparent from the newer text, that the writers intended
for us to believe that the final l00 k.cal./gram molecule heat—later upped to
109 k.cal/gram molecule—was absorbed from the arc, but the 103 cal./gram
molecule dissociation heat figure showed a net 108,897 cal./gram molecule
unexplained. If there are about 65 cubic centimeters per mole of hydrogen at its
critical volume, it seemed highly unlikely that sufficient energy to weld could
be absorbed from the 'dissociating arc', during the time required for 65 cubic
centimeters of gas to pass from the orifice and through the arc.

109,000 cal./gram mole equals 432.6 BTU/gram mole—roughly the
heat energy contained in 60 loaves of bread—the "extra heat energy"
which they have asked us to believe is 'stored' in an amount of atomic hydrogen
which weighs 1/28th of an ounce, during its brief passage through the arc! How
could the transformer produce that much energy, especially when it uses only
half what it does in conventional welding processes? It seems more likely that
excess heat could be stored in molecules than in 'almost naked' atomic hydrogen
atoms. What ever happened to Bohr's little atom! It got bigger, and bigger,
and........

Between the older text (1921-1950, from the first and sixth
editions) and the newer (1976) Norton science encyclopedia, it was obvious that
science was much more straightforward in the pre-National Security Act days, and
that . . . . . .

This is a very brief extract. The process
is extensively described in the book, together with a suggested apparatus to capture the
excess heat. Supporting bibliography is also listed.